Post No. 166a: Something for Embattled Rep. Oscar Meyer to Consider

© 2009 and 2011, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

During recent weeks, the court of public opinion questioned the judgment of numerous prominent individuals.

In the case of several politicians, the talking heads debated whether they should resign. Most recently, many have taken a bite at Rep. Anthony Weiner, a Democrat from New York. Weiner claims that instead of resigning, he will take a leave of absence.

We asked ourselves whether there is a principle potentially applicable to all such cases when the resignation issue arises.

Some urged resignation, others “staying the course.” Some characterized it as a “personal decision,” and still others said it should be left to the voters.

Pundits will debate for years whether Bill Clinton should have resigned before commencement of impeachment proceedings, and the long-term ramifications of his decision not to do so.

Alaska’s Gov. Palin resigned before anyone suggested that she do so, and she still caught flak for that. Nevada Sen. John Ensign hung on for the ride, and only recently announced that he would not seek re-election.

In each instance, many spoke of the judgment of the politicians involved (before and after the revelations of their questioned conduct), and whether their actions bear, in any way, on their ability to make “good judgments” while in office and on behalf of those who placed faith and trust in them.

In the recent cases of Nevada Sen. John Ensign, South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, Gov. Sarah Palin, and now Rep. Weiner, we listened to all of the views, and still did not have a concrete position. We debated the gravity of the conduct, whether the person still had something to offer to society, and whether his or her constituency might actually be the loser should they resign.

We thought about how society defines “judgment,” or more appropriately perhaps, “good judgment.” Whether it is situational and transient in nature, or permanent, and black and white.

A couple of years ago, a friend sent us the following, purportedly a question used as part of a job application, which made us think further about “judgment:”

“You’re driving down a winding, rain-slicked road on a dangerous, stormy night. You pass a bus stop where 3 people are waiting for the bus. One is an elderly woman who appears to be very ill. The 2nd is someone you recognize as a friend who once saved your life. The 3rd is someone who you, in hindsight, recognize you should have married years before. (They later revealed that given the opportunity, they would be now open to your entreaties.)”

“You have room in your sports car for only one other person. Which one would you offer a ride?”

Before sharing the answer of the successful applicant, we have another short story which might bear on whether politicians should resign after embarrassing conduct, which calls into question their judgment.

A regular reader found herself in dire straits a couple of years ago. Most of her life, she had the very best of everything: food, wine, education, exposure, homes, travel, and friends. However, during the last several years she found herself estranged from her family and struggling to make ends meet.

During an exchange at the time, she confided that she was initially confused as to what she should do in terms of her relationship with her minor son, and then she offered this:

“I’ve been flying in private planes since the age of 7. In thinking about my predicament, I recalled something said at the beginning of every flight. ‘Adults flying with minor children should put on their oxygen masks first, before trying to assist their children.’ I realized that I had to get my personal act together first before being able to assist, or be involved with, anyone else.”

It seemed like such a simple concept, and Common Sense. The more we thought about it, the more applicable it seemed to disgraced elected officials in the court of public opinion. At least it is something they should consider.

Back to our job applicant, you could justifiably pick up the elderly lady since her condition is the most precarious. Or you could pay back the friend who saved your life. Or you could pick up your mate and live happily ever after.

Our friend claims that the successful candidate, out of 200 who applied, indicated that you should give the car keys to the old friend and let him or her take the sick woman to the hospital, while you sit with the love of your life awaiting the bus.

One of the Senior Fellows here at the Institute suggested the driver run over the elderly woman, put her out of her misery, fulfill any unrequited desires with the love of your life, and then drive off with the friend who saved your life for some strawberry margaritas at Pancho’s on the Strand.

We haven’t advanced the discussion of what constitutes “good judgment,” have we? Hmmm, we imagine that it is open to debate.

Post No. 144: At Least the Marines Seem to Have It Down

© 2010, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

Several weeks ago, the movie A Few Good Men aired on a TV channel.

In the movie, a young Marine dies during a disciplinary session which is prohibited by regulations. The discipline was administered by two low ranking fellow Marines. The question is whether the Marines were following orders issued by higher ranking officers, or acting on their own accord.

Most recall the exchange between Tom Cruise, who represents the two Marines on trial, and the base’s commanding officer, Colonel Jessup portrayed by Jack Nicholson, resulting in the explosive, “You can’t handle the truth!”

But there is another exchange, prior to Nicholson’s outburst, which merits some consideration. It is between Cruise in his capacity as defense attorney, and one of his clients, the more senior and clear headed of the two Marines on trial.

Kaffee (Cruise): “Did you assault Santiago with the intent of killing him?”

Dawson: “No sir.”

Kaffee: “What was your intent?”

Dawson: “To train him, sir.”

Kaffee: “To train him to do what?”

Dawson: “To train him to think of the unit before himself. To respect the Code.”

Kaffee: “What’s the Code?”

Dawson: “Unit. Corps. God. Country.”

Co-Defense Counsel Weinberg: “I beg your pardon?”

Dawson: “Unit. Corps. God. Country. Sir.

In reciting this “Code,” the issue of the order of importance, or priority of the components, becomes apparent. The Marines seem to have it down to a science.

Prior to the airing of the movie, C-Span2 Book TV aired a program during which they discussed the priorities of politicians. There were allusions to (1) doing what they thought best for their constituents; (2) addressing issues as expressed by their constituents; (3) adherence to Constitutional principles; and (4) pursuit of religious goals. Some would argue that advancing their own financial interests should be somewhere in the mix.

However, when a politician declares that he or she will no longer run for office, or resigns from office, they almost universally claim that they want to “spend more time with their families.”

How do we decide what is more important in the grand scheme of things? Who decided that family is more important than other societal units? Why should more attention be devoted to family as opposed to other societal pursuits?

The son of legendary United Farm Workers leader Cesar Chavez criticized his Father for not spending enough time with his family, and yet millions of farm workers view Chavez as a hero who improved their lives dramatically.

Who decides? What’s right? What’s wrong? What’s the appropriate balance?

In the case of the Marines, it appears to be a somewhat rigid, well thought out prioritization, which is drilled into them. Former Senator Robert Dole, a WWII hero and winner of the Bronze Star, when asked why he risked his life to save that of a fellow soldier, remarked (paraphrasing), “Because you’d like to think that they would do the same for you under the same circumstances.”

According to Colonel Jessup, adherence to the Code by Marines “saves lives,” and permits those of us not on the front line, but who derive the benefit of their protection, to sleep peacefully at night. And anyone who has ever known a Marine, even if just briefly, or socially, knows how deeply this Code runs….

Marines become Marines because of those in whose hands they want to put their lives. It is not a matter of who you want to follow into combat so much as who you want to follow you, over the hill, or through the door.

Which brings us to Senators Ensign and Edwards, and Governors Spitzer and Sanford, and Presidents Kennedy and Clinton, and most recently Tiger Woods (although not an elected official with specifically outlined responsibilities to the public) who seem to have muddled the line of acceptable prioritization.

Or did they?

If these public figures had not been married, and had children, would we feel any differently about their societal contributions?

On the other hand, none of the above (with the possible exception of Tiger) seems to have had any qualms about using their marriages in any and every way possible to persuade the public to view them as individuals who would not behave in the manner is which they were obviously behaving.

For those contemplating public life and being in the public eye, it might prove prudent to get the applicable code down pat before becoming famous. A failure to do so could have dramatic negative consequences.

And the folks who are sending our Marines into harm’s way seem to be telling the rest of us that in a closed political society, where everybody is guilty, the only crime is in getting caught, and the only sin is stupidity.

With all due respect to our elected officials, the adaptation of some variation of “Unit. Corps. God. Country.” might prove to be the better approach.

And who would have thunk that society might benefit from emulating principles espoused by an entity run by the government….

Post No. 142: A Funny Thing Happened to Tiger on the Way to the Altar

© 2009 the Institute for Applied Common Sense

One can not resist asking, "Is there anything beneficial which society can take away from this Tiger Woods 'infidelity during marriage' situation (regardless of one’s position about the propriety or impropriety of the conduct of the various participants involved)?

An argument could be made that society should constantly re-evaluate all of its institutions, including the institution of marriage, to determine their continuing viability and value, and that unfortunate events such as the still developing story involving Woods, should prompt us to re-examine that institution now.

Arguably, every time society determines that something is not quite working the way that it was envisioned, it should re-visit the original reasons and expectations underlining the creation of the practice.

Marriage (as we currently view it in America, particularly its restrictions on sex with others) is a relatively recent convention, which has evolved and changed over time. When difficulties arise, especially involving celebrities and public figures, society has a tendency to examine the event from a static perspective, using the rules and expectations of the current culture.

Perhaps looking at it from a dynamic perspective, and determining whether it still performs a valuable societal function, including an examination of its costs and benefits, might be the way to go.

Many soundly criticized the CEOs of the Big Three auto companies and the investments banks, and the Federal Reserve for being asleep at the switch and not paying careful enough attention to business fluctuations which led to our current economic recession. "How could they have let this happen?" we asked. Why should we expect any less diligence from society in terms of monitoring and responding to fluctuations in societal values?

Is marriage really for everyone? Why do we expect virtually everyone to marry at some point during their lifetime? Why does society have a tendency to question the “whatever” of people who haven’t been married by a certain point in time in their lives?

A suggestion on our part was previously made that marital infidelity had at least some biological component, which went beyond the simple exercise of discipline or personal responsibility, or religious beliefs for that matter. That suggestion was soundly and emphatically criticized by our readers.

Assuming, for purposes of argument, that there is no biological component, then simply examining the conduct of golfer Woods, Albert Einstein, Gov. Mark Sanford, Sen. John Edwards, Sen. John Ensign, inventor Henry Ford, Presidents Wilson, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Clinton, would strongly suggest that many do not respect the institution as presently constituted or evolved.

And this is not to suggest that the rules of the marital agreement have only been violated by men. And that’s not to mention that the “other women” are also members of society, who obviously do not respect the current form of the institution.

Some of the best and brightest minds of our culture, people who have excelled in their various pursuits, and who have served their countries and improved the quality of life for millions, have chosen not to adhere to their marital vows. And why not?

There must be something there. For us not to re-examine the real issues, or for us to simply dismiss them as “aberrations,” or even examples of “selfishness,” would serve little value.

Perhaps people today are marrying for all of the wrong reasons.

Are potential loneliness and a desire to grow old with a companion sufficient enough reasons to justify marriage? And what about security? Are the reasons that most people get married so self-serving, in terms of underlying motivation, that the majority of marriages are bound to fail at some point?

One of the wrong reasons might be public and peer pressure. Many a professional person has felt compelled to get married in order to advance professionally.

Imagine the questions which would be raised about an unmarried presidential candidate.

Back in July of this year, we featured an article about the risks associated with conformity. The article suggested that group-think may delay our addressing certain problems and crafting solutions. If the group thinks that nothing is wrong, or that the current model still works, then it continues to deny the existence of problems.

Some years ago, Charlie Rose interviewed a very prominent member of Indian society and an Indian family dynasty. The young man had been educated in some of the best institutions in the world, and had grown up in both the Western and Eastern worlds.

Since the man was recently married, Charlie asked whether he thought that family arranged marriages or marriages where the participants were romantically involved were better. His answer was quick and unequivocal – arranged marriages. He explained that one felt more responsibility to society and to one’s extended family in an arranged marriage.

He also added that if one actually fell in love with the designated spouse, then that was like “icing on the cake.”

And with all of the talk about infidelity in connection with the Woods marriage, we still do not have a clear picture of whether there was any violence.

However, there is little question that when a spouse disappears or is murdered, attention is first directed toward the other spouse. An editorial in Time magazine some years ago suggested that marriage is one of the most dangerous places for an adult woman to be in terms of physical violence.

Tiger Woods has done a lot of good in the world, and has made many of us proud. This is obviously a blemish on his career, for which he has taken full responsibility and apologized.

However, in the same way that Magic Johnson’s AIDS condition may have done much to focus society’s attention on that disease, perhaps Tiger’s “indiscretions” may help society focus on whether marriage is still a viable institution for the majority of its citizens.

Post No. 131: There Has to be Something More

© 2009, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

Today, we have some Common Sense thoughts about choosing a spouse - the first, and hopefully only, time.

When we sit down at the keyboard, we’ve often just watched a series of movies on TCM, some cartoons, and the news.

John Edwards, the Democratic presidential contender who cheated on his wife, is back in the news. So are the timeless issues of sex, power, and breach of trust.

As we watched the Edwardses, we asked, “What are people thinking when they pair up?”

Some suggest that very little thinking goes on, at least north of the equator, and that’s where the cartoons come in. We’ve long argued that transient, hard-wired blood flow and chemical (whether hormonal or self-administered) factors play far too large a role.

We're not being prudish; we've just been there; and, on far too frequent an occasion.

It’s not difficult to find some element of errant temptation in most Hollywood products. Some even suggest that Tinseltown bears some responsibility.

But history is replete with evidence that hanky-panky predated Hollywood. A recent History Channel program discussed the long trips between American colonial farms where brief “stops” were made (by members of both sexes) to, let’s say, regain one’s energy.

Modern couples are often shocked to find that sex is a reoccurring complicating factor. Last evening, we watched a program on the mythological god Zeus. It was noted that all of the ancient gods, in addition to their immense power, had human frailties.

Zeus’ flaw? An insatiable sexual appetite. (Even without Viagra.)

While we’ve never quite figured out why the male member (or even the female member) of a couple might have an interest in prolonging the event (particularly those otherwise incompatible), we do find the spate of competing commercials entertaining.

The description of the potential side effects is almost as humorous as the cartoons we watch. “Anyone experiencing an erection longer than 4 hours should consult a physician.” Add to that the warning that someone experiencing a decrease in hearing or sight should discontinue using the product, and we’re really confused. Aren’t those parts of the deal?

In an earlier piece, we suggested that people considering, or stumbling toward, infidelity recognize the early warning signs. We proposed nipping the impulse in the bud while they still had some degree of control, before “Nature” took over.

That didn’t go over very well. Many apparently feel that Nature has no role, and it is all about pure selfishness, and a lack of Personal Responsibility. However, let's face it: the real issue is how one wants to occupy one's time.

We saw the movie Outbreak for the first time last week. In it, members of a divorced couple, both of whom are infectious disease doctors, join forces to fight a deadly virus. Watching them place their personal differences aside, and focus on their mutual goals, prompted us to write this piece.

TCM recently aired a collection of Andy Hardy movies starring Mickey Rooney. As Rooney got older, he began to take an interest in members of the opposite sex. In some of his other movies, he was paired with Liz Taylor. In real life, Rooney and Taylor married 8 times each, and to them we dedicate this piece.

From what we’ve seen, young people considering hooking up long-term might look for something else apart from the transient. (Children are obviously not a very strong motivation to stay together these days.)

We’re neither apologizing for, nor condoning cheating. Nor are we suggesting that cheating is a minor issue to be glanced over. We’re just suggesting that marriage might have a better chance of survival, whatever the problems encountered, if there is something else going on apart from physical attraction.

The following appeared in our earlier, controversial piece:

“Probably the best line about love... is..., ‘Love is not two people staring into the eyes of one another, but rather both of them staring in the same direction together at the same time focused on the same goal.’ [I]f a relationship is primarily [physical] attraction... based, the decrease in the stimulation and intensity will occur about as quickly as the increase, if not faster.

“When men and women... realize there are issues in society larger and more significant than themselves, their children, and the physical structures in which they live (and where one places his appendage), then we will have made some progress as a society. When couples feel that their relationship is about to disintegrate, they might consider jointly volunteering their time to the AIDS Foundation, the Alzheimer’s Foundation, or a similar organization. That’ll place things into perspective.”

Earlier this week, we saw another couple in the news – the Clintons. The former Prez brought home two detained American journalists who made missteps in North Korea. His previously humiliated wife, now Secretary of State, beamed with pride. Moving on beyond his peccadilloes, they, together, pulled something off which they felt mattered.

For all the criticism their relationship received in the past, perhaps they have figured out the formula to a long-term marriage, or another type of "Stay Pow'R." (It remains to be seen whether the marriages of Gov. Mark Sanford and Sen. John Ensign will survive.)

We strongly suspect that at some point during or following the Lewinsky scandal, at least one of them said, “There’s still work to be done, which best be done by the two of us.”

Post No. 126: Common Sense as a Way of Life

© 2009, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

The most senior Fellow here at the Institute, the Laughingman, believes that Common Sense should be considered a way of life.

Most of us here respond to newsworthy events as situations of first impression, and find it necessary to absorb the facts, issues, and analyze the various possible positions over a relatively lengthy period of time. We then share our observations.

The Laughingman, on the other hand, spits out his Common Sense reactions like Yellowstone’s Old Faithful. (Sometimes the speed with which he comes up with this stuff is a bit intimidating.)

His view is that in an effort to improve our world, we need simply have people think more about Personal Responsibility for their actions, and accept same for the results.

In our preceding Post No. 125, Something for Gov. Sanford to Consider: Parents Flying with Minor Children Should…, we explored whether an elected official should resign upon disclosure of his or her error in judgment, even after accepting responsibility for their conduct.

In that post, we used a riddle which had a motorist approaching three people at a bus stop during a horrendous storm. We asked which person should be picked up if the vehicle only had room for one more passenger.

Yesterday, we watched a movie on the USA Network. The movie, 16 Blocks, stars Bruce Willis and Mos Def. Willis is an aging, washed up, alcoholic police officer. He’s charged with transporting Def, a n’er-do-well witness scheduled to testify before the grand jury.

After someone attempts to kill Def shortly after Willis takes custody of him, he quickly realizes that his “fellow officers” want to ensure that Def never makes it to the grand jury, before its term expires. It is later revealed that Def was a witness to illegal police activity.

Instead of joining forces with his fellow officers, Willis ends up protecting Def to the end, even though it is against his personal interest. In fact, there is a protracted collection of scenes, where Willis’ former comrades pursue him and Def like Wile E. Coyote pursues the Road Runner. We later learn that Willis is one of the corrupt officers who Def would unknowingly implicate.

Throughout the movie, Def keeps posing to strangers our riddle about the three people at the bus stop. (One famed film critic once noted that Def’s incessant chatter and voice made fingernails on a blackboard sound like Alicia Keyes.)

At the end of the day, Def compliments and thanks Willis for “doing the right thing,” one of the Laughingman’s favorite lines. Willis decides to take the heat and focus away from Def, and volunteers to testify, thus implicating himself.

The Laughingman had the good fortune to learn his craft as an ad weasel under some of the best. He often cites Bill Bernbach, who ushered in the last great creative revolution, as having a unique approach to most problems. He claims that Bernbach frequently noted, "I've got a neat gimmick, let's tell the truth."

There are a couple of other sayings attributable to the Laughingman. In the realm of politics, he claims that, “If you own up to your own failings, you make the issue irrelevant... no political coercion can be applied to a man who insists on telling the truth....”

If one just examines the long list of politicians, from both sides of the aisle, and down the middle, who are experiencing 3rd degree burns from the white heat of the examination spotlight, in each instance, lies and deception can be found like corn flakes and milk outside of an infant’s bowl.

Many claim that there is no such thing as Common Sense, and even more claim that to the extent that it exists, it is not very common.

But doing the right thing is not some elusive concept, and it doesn’t require special talent, education, training, or resources.

As a general proposition, telling the truth reduces complications, and exponentially increases the probability that things will go well and that you will find, like Nirvana, Common Sense.

The Laughingman often says, “Doing the right thing is not rocket science.”

Just this weekend, it was revealed that the CIA may have maintained a special, secret program, which it did not disclose to Congress. It will undoubtedly be suggested by defenders of the non-disclosure that there was a legal loophole in the law justifying this tactic.

In the ether which is Personal Responsibility, the objective is not to show other people how clever you are, but that in most instances cleverness is but a temporary tactic; Common Sense, on the other hand, is a way of life….

© 2009, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

Post No. 125: Something for Gov. Sanford to Consider: Parents with Minor Children Should...

© 2009, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

During recent weeks, the court of public opinion questioned the judgment of numerous prominent individuals.

In the case of several politicians, the talking heads debated whether they should resign.

We asked ourselves whether there is a principle potentially applicable to all such cases when the resignation issue arises.

Some urged resignation, others “staying the course.” Some characterized it as a “personal decision,” and still others said it should be left to the voters.

Pundits will debate for years whether Bill Clinton should have resigned before commencement of impeachment proceedings, and the long-term ramifications of his decision not to do so.

More recently, Alaska’s Gov. Palin resigned before anyone suggested that she do so, and she still caught flak for that!

In each instance, many spoke of the judgment of the politicians involved (before and after the revelations of their questioned conduct), and whether their actions bear, in any way, on their ability to make “good judgments” while in office and on behalf of those who placed faith and trust in them.

In the recent cases of Nevada Sen. John Ensign, South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, and now Gov. Sarah Palin, we listened to all of the views, and still did not have a concrete position. We debated the gravity of the conduct, whether the person still had something to offer to society, and whether his constituency might actually be the loser should they resign.

We thought about how society defines “judgment,” or more appropriately perhaps, “good judgment.” Whether it is situational and transient in nature, or permanent, and black and white.

Earlier this week, a friend sent us the following, purportedly a question used as part of a job application, which made us think further about “judgment:”

“You’re driving down a winding, rain-slicked road on a dangerous, stormy night. You pass a bus stop where 3 people are waiting for the bus. One is an elderly woman who appears to be very ill. The 2nd is someone you recognize as a friend who once saved your life. The 3rd is someone who you, in hindsight, recognize you should have married years before. (They later revealed that given the opportunity, they would be now open to your entreaties.)”

“You have room in your sports car for only one other person. Which one would you offer a ride?”

Before sharing the answer of the successful applicant, we have another short story which might bear on whether politicians should resign after embarrassing conduct, which calls into question their judgment.

A regular reader recently found herself in dire straits. Most of her life, she had the very best of everything: food, wine, education, exposure, homes, travel, and friends. However, during the last several years she found herself estranged from her family and struggling to make ends meet.

During a recent exchange, she confided that she was initially confused as to what she should do in terms of her relationship with her minor son, and then she offered this:

“I’ve been flying in private planes since the age of 7. In thinking about my predicament, I recalled something said at the beginning of every flight. ‘Adults flying with minor children should put on their oxygen masks first, before trying to assist their children.’ I realized that I had to get my personal act together first before being able to assist, or be involved with, anyone else.”

It seemed like such a simple concept, and Common Sense. The more we thought about it during the week, the more applicable it seemed to disgraced elected officials in the court of public opinion. At least it is something they should consider.

Back to our job applicant, you could justifiably pick up the elderly lady since her condition is the most precarious. Or you could pay back the friend who saved your life. Or you could pick up your mate and live happily ever after.

Our friend claims that the successful candidate, out of 200 who applied, indicated that you should give the car keys to the old friend and let him or her take the sick woman to the hospital, while you sit with the love of your life awaiting the bus.

One of the Senior Fellows here at the Institute suggested the driver run over the elderly woman, put her out of her misery, fulfill any unrequited desires with the love of your life, and then drive off with the friend who saved your life for some strawberry margaritas at Pancho’s on the Strand.

We haven’t advanced the discussion of what constitutes “good judgment,” have we? Hmmm, we imagine that it is open to debate.